Careful scientists wish to tell you that the concept of "similarities" (also called "homology"), as an evidence that evolution has occurred, is without foundation. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Similarities
Introduction: All we have are theories without evidence
The Amino Acid "Similarities": Forget about similar number of arm bones; look at the other "similarities"
Hemoglobin "Similarities": We descended from lampreys?
Genetic "Similarities": We should find the similarities in the genetic codes
Circular Reasoning: The similarities argument is based on reasoning in a circle
Conclusion: The similarities, even though logically required, do not exist
Page numbers without book references refer to the book,
SIMILARITIES, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( *
) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over
4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is
, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or faith?"—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction" to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species, pp. x-xi (1971 edition).
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When it comes to comparing similarities among amino acids in alpha hemoglobin sequences, crocodiles have much more in common with chickens (17.5%) than with vipers (5.6%), their fellow reptiles. Myoglobin sequences do show one reptile / reptile pair (lizard / crocodile) with greater similarity (10.5% to 8.5%) than the reptile / bird (crocodile / chicken) pair, but it also puts the lizard as close to the chicken (10.5%) as to its fellow reptile . . The greatest similarity is between the crocodiles and chickens."—Henry M. Morris and Gary Parker, What Is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 59-60.
"The difference between turtles and rattlesnakes of 21 amino acid residues per 100 codons is notable larger than many differences between representatives of widely separated classes, for example, 17 between chicken and lamprey, or 16 between horse and dogfish, or even 15 between dog and screw worm fly in two different phyla."—*T. Jukes and *R. Holmquist, "Evolutionary Clock: Nonconsistency of Rate in Different Species," in Science, 177 (1972), p. 530.
"It is hard to see a common line of descent snaking in so unsystematic a way through so many different phyla."—*Richard E. Dickerson and *Irving Geis, The Structure and Action of Proteins, 1969.
"There is simply no way of explaining how a uniform rate of evolution could have occurred in any family of homologous proteins by either chance or selection; and even if we could advance an explanation for one particular protein family, we would still be left with the mystifying problem of explaining why other protein families should have evolved at different rates."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 305.
"The difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates has created chaos in evolutionary thought . . [As a result] the credibility of the molecular clock hypothesis is severely strained and with it the whole paradigm of evolution itself is endangered."—*Op. cit., p. 306.
"However, as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the 1960s, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature [from amoeba through its "descendants" on to man] but were going to reaffirm the view that the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence of evolution is emphatically absent. Moreover, the divisions turned out to be more mathematically perfect than even most die-hard typologists would have predicted."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), chapter entitled, "A Bio-chemical Echo of Typology."
*There is not a trace, at a molecular level, of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredible, man is closer to lamprey [in his hemoglobin] than are fish!"—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985).
It is of interest that chlorophyll in plants and human hemoglobin differ in chemical makeup by only one molecule. The difference being one magnesium molecule exchanged for one iron molecule. This does not imply that our ancestors were trees.
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find `homologous genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."—*Sir Gavin de Beer, Homology, An Unsolved Problem (1971).
"But if it is true that through the genetic code, gene code for enzymes that synthesize proteins are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner,—what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same `patterns,' in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked that question in 1938, and it has not yet been answered."—*Op. cit., p. 16.
"The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl' [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin.
"Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down."—*Randall, quoted in *William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189.
"When Professor Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.
"Taxonomists [those who classify plants and animals according to their appearance] have never had an objective basis for homology . . they cannot at present give it any objective basis, even though it is a logical necessity in the evolution of animals."—*R.E. Blackwalder, Taxonomy: A Text and Reference Book (1967).
"A great darkness had settled on the majority of British zoologists in the early decades of this century."—*G.P. Wells, quoted in Perspectives in Experiential Biology (1976).
"If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins."—*Thomas Hunt Morgan, The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species," in Scientific Monthly 16(3):237 (1923).
"Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the [totally opposite] idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of every evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery [of structures so totally diverse], the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985).
"The concept of homology is fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution, yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present-day biological theory."—*Sir A. Hardy, The Living Stream (1965), p. 211.
"By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship . . it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units."—*N. Heribert Nilsson, Sysnthetische Artbildung (1953), p. 1143.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
To the next topic in this series:
CHROMOSOME COMPARISONS: Chromosomes and DNA ought to directly tell us which species are related to which.